12 October 2014

She's not up to it

The Normandy Hotel in Renfrew, before the referendum. The Pakistan Welfare dinner. The Vale of Atholl pipe band have filed out, having smashed out renditions of the Flower of Scotland and the national anthem of Pakistan. The room is thronging with respectably dressed folk, the men abuzz with handshakes and gossip, the kids on their best behaviour, the tables piled high with iced lassi. The minutes tick by slowly.

Proceedings run long, and are punctuated by long breaks during which this conviviality boils over, chairs and tables abandoned. An officious major domo in a red coattee and medal, loosely - and with mounting irritation - structures proceedings with booming passive aggression. When the crowd are finally persuaded to sit, a visually-impaired young man recites a verse from the Koran from memory. We hear a touching remembrance speech from the son of a recently-departed stalwart of the organisation. The Pakistani ambassador reflects on the ties binding Scotland and his country. The room is ecumenical, but chock full of politicians and senior state functionaries of every political hue.

The top table - indeed the whole room - is crammed with familiar faces. Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, wee Willie Rennie, Tory Deputy Jackson Carlaw, the Lord Advocate, a deputy chief constable, a smattering of councillors and a wealth of parliamentarians, mainly Labour and SNP. Humza Yousaf glad-hands about wearing a splendid sequinned coat you imagine his mammy bought him. Anas Sarwar works the room like a greased octopus. Almost all of the other politicians - at least those with a sparkle of charisma - do likewise. Nicola moves assiduously from table to table, looking both elegant and appropriate in a pale salmon shalwar kameez. Although perhaps not gregarious by disposition, Sturgeon has diligently acquired the social and political skills. But for the odd flicker of self-consciousness, you'd never guess she felt at all out of place, operating against type.

But look. Up there. On stage. A small, still figure wearing a fixed rictus smile that doesn't quite reach her eyes. You might guess at a sort of loneliness alive in her as, immobile and with searching eyes, she looks out across the babbling mass of sociability. And she doesn't join in. As someone with a thick vein of inadequacy in my own temperament, I recognise the tension which comes from feeling that you ought to do things which don't come entirely naturally or comfortably, when you hesitate, and miss opportunities you know you should take. It is ghastly, paralysing. You feel useless, utterly useless in the pit of your belly.

Her speech is respectable, the delivery workmanlike, if not inspiring. Others catch the mood more deftly. Even Jackson Carlaw, who keeps things short, direct and self-effacing. The sense of the lady's overwhelming shyness is brought home even more powerfully in one of the dinner's many breaks - as enthusiasts waylay Alex Salmond for a blether, or a photograph. He looks in his element, holding court, seemingly inexhaustible. She, by contrast, creeps around the big hotel room ignored, quietly, awkward. As soon as possible, she disappears into the night under a floral umbrella, as the rain begins to fall. I doubt many - maybe any - hands were shaken. The set piece speech was fine, the script written; but pressing the flesh was a terrifying chore which she never really attempted.

I have an inexplicable soft spot for Johann Lamont. Or maybe it's a misplaced sense of pity. It is easy to like people's harmless vulnerabilities, and she strikes me, first and foremost as a self-conscious sort of person, with a thin skin, and a brittle sense of self underneath it. It's never a pretty thing to see a human personality, pinned to the PR rack, being pulled into strange and unattractive shapes by the perceived demands of the political personality being constructed for them. But with the now-departed Paul Sinclair working the winch and tending to the ropes, the leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament has been transformed into a ferocious, non-nonsense, belligerent personality, punctuated by long, soothing spells as the invisible woman.

You can imagine her pulling a cheeky child up short, telling them they'd never amount to anything in life. I'm not saying she did. I hope she didn't. But that is this kind of unlovely, discouraging teacher which Lamont has made her public persona, or been made into. It is difficult to imagine that Johann's teaching career left behind it a wealth of students who can say that she bulldozed through her classes like a knifegrinder – seeing "the dull minds scattering sparks of themselves, becoming razory, becoming useful", as Norman MacCaig once wrote In Praise of a Man. That's an opportunity missed.

The disastrous thing is, there is no gravitas to any of this. Her latest relaunch speech - wittily described by one of my crueller followers on twitter as "cargo cult Obama" - is an ungrammatical mish-mash of rhetorical tropes and meaningless drivel. Whoever composed it - and part of me fancies this might be from the desk of Lamont herself - seems to think that the essence of uplifting rhetoric is combining the same words in as many different senses in a single sentence as possible. Hence the sub-Blairite payoff: "We can have any number of Scotland Acts - Scotland will improve when Scotland unites and all of Scotland acts and that is the challenge." It is a kind of pastiche of eloquence, to be uttered with feeling, in pert, verbless sentences, but it is emotionally and politically vacuous.

Much of the recent gossip around the parliament has focussed on Lamont's longevity. Will she survive till 2016? And who could take over from her anyway? She hasn't taken out Jim Murphy at the knees, but after the referendum result, she seems to have acquired a more resolute gleam in either eye. It is as if a small, flattering voice has stolen from somewhere in her skull, "I've seen off Alex Salmond. I can do this. I'll stay." My own sense has always been that it is the function of caretaker leaders to lose elections, (and perhaps to win them, if they get lucky) and Johann hasn't lost her's yet. She hasn't done the job, and cannot, with any credibility, throw in the towel now.

But there are also the bright flashes, and a permanent residual glow, of deep, deep insecurity about the Labour MSP, which I expect to be the focus of increasing attention has 2016 approaches. Peter Ross's 2013 interview in the Scotland on Sundaywith Lamont is required reading, and is - very gently, very intuitively - eviscerating. Peter captures that sense of self-consciousness which I observed in the Normandy Hotel in bright colours, and which goes a long way to explaining some of the other, awkward expressions of Lamont's public persona. A key passage:

"Perhaps because her self-esteem is so rooted in that old image of herself as the clever girl from the tenements, this criticism seems to nag at her and she comes back to it later on. “The worst thing anybody could call me is stupid.”
She understands, I think, how corrosive this sort of criticism can be; how, for people who are a little fragile it can eat away at your guts, your head."

One expression of this, for me, is Johann's pretentiousness, in the very specific sense of "trying to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed." I know, I know, Lamont's favoured shtick is the plain-speaking, no-nonsense dominie. The suggestion seems improbable and even impertinent, particularly from someone as excessively florid as me, but bear with me. Watch the Labour leader talk about any topic, given room to run. She's a remarkably digressive, and frequently incoherent, speaker. Watch her trying and failing to explain her devolution plans to Gordon Brewer. Watch her performance on telly on referendum night, setting out the main , complex factors informing the vote. Watch her in any setting, where she has time to develop a point, without a script clutched for grim death to read from. She tanks.

The obvious interpretation of this is simply that her mind is stumbling and unfocussed, her tongue tied and tripping her, but I think that diagnosis misses the more interesting point. Lamont doesn't have the confidence to be simple. Her digressive tendency derives from a generally unsuccessful effort to present herself as master of the brief, in command of the technicalities, able to spring from one topic to the next with elegance and fluency. It springs, in short, from inadequacy and a misplaced effort to make out her sense of self as, in Ross's phrase, "a clever girl from the tenements." It turns every considered answer into a dreary psychodrama.

The only problem is, Lamont doesn't have the communication skills or the smarts to prosper in the role she's allotted to herself. She isn't the master of the brief, and doesn't have the prowess to pretend otherwise. Ensnared by her inadequacies, she conspires to make herself look considerably dumber and less eloquent than she undoubtedly can be. In trying and failing to be impressive, she leaves a mangled wreckage of loosely strung together words and concepts, exemplified by her statement, during the referendum campaign, that "Scots aren't genetically programmed to make political decisions." What she meant by that remark was that Scottish political inclinations are not inborn or inevitable - but instead served up an eminently quotable suggestion that ye and me are a chromosome or two short of the full governing set. This tendency is only likely to be aggravated as 2016 approaches, and the thin film of her self-esteem stews in the battery acid of a campaign.

Emotionally vulnerable leaders are, all too easily, eaten alive in politics. I say it with no relish whatever. This is an ugly thing to see. But if Johann stays on, and my reading of her is anywhere near right, that is the fate awaiting her as the next Scottish Parliamentary election approaches. If the subtext of the next SNP Holyrood campaign is She's Not Up To It, it is hard not to feel that Lamont's own self-confidence isn't rotted by that self-same, nagging doubt. As a human personality, with all of the vulnerability which comes from that, Johann is going to be crucified, not just politically, but in herself. Part of me feels for the the peeping face at the top table, shyly refusing to descend. The referendum may be won, the Labour leader may feel buoyed, but I wouldn't want a lend of Lamont's shoes for anything.

47 comments
:

Empathy is, after all, not a zero sum game. One needn't want her to occupy Bute House, or even have a scintilla of sympathy with her party, to feel a more elemental sense of how unpleasant the coming months are liable to be. Even if the SNP look likely to be beneficiaries of that.

You have captured what I have been thinking, that she struggles, for whatever reason that might be. It's always a bit painful and cringey to watch her in a debate, because as soon as she shuts up, I think, oh no, know you will be gutted for that. I'm not all that sorry for her tho', because you also need to have the brains and guts, to call it quits when you don't fit the job.

Your recent blogs have been nothing short of outstanding, and this is no exception. Excellent perception here, and I think I do have a small amount of sympathy for her now (thanks for that...!), although it's tempered by her lack of what I consider to be one of the most important qualities a person can have: knowing the limits of your own abilities. I have very little time for people who put themselves in a position of authority over others without having the necessary skills to pull it off, be it a teacher who cannot control a class, a manager who cannot support their staff, or a party leader who has poor communication and media handling skills.

Personally, I would never dream of taking up a position as a manager (as I always point out at annual reviews) because I'd be shit at it. I have no idea what on earth possessed Lamont to go for the leadership, because she's pretty much as completely unsuited to the role as one could possibly be. Of course, what possessed people to actually elect her is even more baffling...

Kind of you to say, Doug. I do know what you mean. "Promoted to their level of inadequacy" is not an uncommon phenomenon, unfortunately. Sometimes, in order to grow, you've got to work against oneself. At least, that's my experience. Where things get problematic is when you find that you don't have hidden depths - you're just useless - and you're abandoned in the position you coveted. "Know thyself" was carved into an archway at the Oracle in Delphi. Old wisdoms sometimes ring true.

While it is easy to feel sympathy for her as she flounders and flails in her chosen role we must always keep in mind that she chose the role which daily exposes her inadeqacies. It's no-one's fault but her own that she's in a position for which she is completely unsuited.

An excellent article that stands out even from your usual fare. I suspect I would find few likeable qualities in JL if I was ever to encounter her but, after reading this, I do feel a bit sorry for her too.

Good article, Andrew - we may have spoken about this on Twitter before. I share a similar sort of background to Lamont & was the ‘clever girl from the scummy estate’ who got into a ‘posh’ university. I well remember my own huge feelings of inadequacy sitting in early tutorials and terrible panic at the thought of the fancy dinners we were expected to attend. So at that level I do feel for her & sometimes want to hide behind the sofa as I cringe during some of her performances.I’ve been told by others involved in the party that she can be warm and natural, but that is certainly not a side of her that we see at all. It strikes me that her advisors have done her no favours at all. She stands clutching at her heavily scripted questions & has no room for any manoeuvre when her questions are swatted away by Eck. I wonder if she’s done this out of some sense of duty or obligation and am amazed that she carries on with that role, as she clearly goes through torments doing it. Even in the #wearitpink photos last week, she looks very uncomfortable & you can’t imagine her throwing a pink boa round her shoulders and having a laugh. She seems to have performed the role on a ‘hang on a week at a time’ basis and that seems to be her intention for the future. So yes, I feel a little sorry for her, but am equally puzzled as to why she carries on.

It is a tension. I've taught many folk who lack confidence in themselves, despite their native wit, and the native gormlessness of the folk they find intimidating. As a teacher, building up confidence, setting off a few sparks - that's always the goal. But you can see vulnerability working away in folk. It is, as Peter Ross says in his piece on Lamont, acidic. Although from quite a different background myself, I can empathise as I say with my own weird line in inadequacy, which I wrote about a bit more expansively before the referendum. I'm alive to the coping mechanisms. I may have got bits of this wrong - but in her public persona, Lamont strikes me as disturbingly transparent about her vulnerabilities, despite her best and ineffective efforts to cover them up. You may not like her. I'd never vote for her. This piece is, itself, an act of a kind of partisan, malevolent empathy on my part. But part of you ought - I'd say - to be able to relate to the fragile human personality, clearly twisting on the rack. Even as you turn the wheel, and give her straining limbs another stretch.

Gordon Brown is now on record stating that 'English Votes for English Laws' will end the Union.

My question's are:

1. Will Hague's proposed EVEL bill, within the current UK Parliamentary Union, which has the intent of removing voting rights from the elected MP's on the basis of the geographical position of constituencies, be in breech of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union as it will seek to alter rights given for 'all time' in terms of representation of the electorate in those constituencies which would be excluded.

2. Would such a proposal (EVEL) meet Lord Cooper's legal determination on the nature of the UK Union Parliament, conceded by the Lord Advocate on behalf the UK Parliament at Westminster that any fundamental change or alteration to the Treaty of Union - such as this proposed exclusion - be outside its legal and constitutional powers and can only be agreed by the original sovereign parliaments to the 1707 Treaty?

3. If the UK Parliament passed such a bill, would this render the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) null and void as the new Parliament at Westminster could not be considered to be the UK Parliament of the Treaty as it had exceeded its legal and constitutional powers by enacting the currently proposed EVEL bill?

Sorry to be off thread but I am intrigued with the idea that Hague forcing the proposed Tory EVEL Bill through the UK Parliament ends the Union by default or leaves the legality of any such bill and the UK Parliament's competence to enact it, wide open to legal challenge in the Court of Session as it is outside the already conceded legal and constitutional powers.

I don't see why English law would regard this ugly change as more problematic than the many other abrogations of the Treaty of Union. In a quick look through the Articles of Union listed at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf, I see:

#I breached when the name of the new kingdom was changed in 1801 and again in 1927

#XIV breached by the Poll Tax

#XX breached by the Heritable Jurisdictions (Scotland) Act 1746

#XXI breached when the royal burghs were abolished in 1975

The UK govt position (as noted in para 45 of the UK's legal opinion at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf) is that there have been other major revisions of the Acts of Union.

So it would appear to this non-lawyer that the Westminster view of the Act of Union is that is simply a piece of historical legislation which may be amended in any way by the Crown in Parliament (which, according to Westminster doctrine, is sovereign).

I know that the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is complex and nuanced, and that Scottish courts might feel inclined to a different view to those in London. The 1953 case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate offered some contradictory obiter dicta views on the courts relationship to the Treaty, including doubts as to whether they would entertain such a case.

But even if a court accepted jurisdiction, I can't see how any court could strike down EVEL on grounds of incompatibility with the Treaty of Union without also conceding the illegitimacy of other breaches of the Articles. That could open some big cans of worms.

A lawyer may give you a more definitive answer on the legalities than my laywoman's observations. However, it seems to me that without a codified and written constitution, matters such as EVEL are settled politically. Westminster will regard this as entirely as a matter for the UK Parliament to decide as its members see fit. However, as we have already seen with the Poll Tax, the settled will of Westminster can be challenged effectively by popular protest. The right to legislate ultimately depends on the ability of Parliament to enforce its will, and the poll tax caused such uproar that Westmister eventually backed down.

An even more fundamental clash of constitutional principles occurred in Ireland after 1918, when the Irish view of constitutional right clashed with that of Westminster, leading to a series of conflicts which were not fully resolved until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. One of the interesting moments of that process was the ratification in 1921 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty#Ratification) by an assembly which could be viewed under UK constitutional theory as the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, or under Irish theory as a meeting of the revolutionary Dáil Éireann; but under a strict reading of either body's rules, it was neither. In the end, the legalies were finessed by both sides to implement a political solution.

I raise the Irish example to point out that in the end, these matters are political, because I think that EVEL will also be a political rather than legal issue. If Westminster decides to impose EVEL, then either it will succeed in imposing its will (whether by law or force) ... or it will face some sort of sustained rejection which leads to new rules being made somehow -- up to and including a de facto breakup of the union which is ratified post-facto, as happened in Ireland (albeit with the extra complication of a war of independence followed by a civil war).

For all its pompous grandstanding over constitutional theory, Westminster is a remarkably pragmatic centre of power. It imposes its will for as long as it can, haughtily proclaiming inviolable principles of law and constitution ... but when it finds that it has backed itself into a corner, it has repeatedly shown itself able and willing to ensure its own survival by making radical changes to both.

A straightforward answer to this: Article 19 of the Act of Union is concerned with the status of Scottish judicial institutions "in all time coming." It doesn't say anything about Scottish parliamentary representation. Article 22 sets the level of Scottish representation in the House of Commons at 45 souls.

Hopeless woman.So naive she doesn't understand the damage she has unwittingly inflicted on Scottish labour. Johan was deemed 'capable' as a babysitter left in Edinburgh to look after the weans whilst the big pigs went off to the London trough.What Westminster arrogantly refused to notice was that the weans have grown up and outwitted the baby-sitter . If Johann had an ounce of self awareness she would have asked for help earlier. Makes it easy for socialist Scots to choose who gets their next vote!

I have only heard Lamont speak once - at the Janey Buchan memorial evening - and she was most impressive; impassioned and articulate, and a real human being.

I suppose most politicians - like most comedians - have a public persona that is not quite in harmony with the real person, and this produces edges and shadows that can be picked over, as you have done here.

I like her. How are the other leaders doing? We live in an odd time, post referendum. I am not a big fan of Alex Salmond but I felt for him watching him on the STV charity night a few days ago - he looked for the first time like a beaten man - and no matter vhich team you support it is always sad when one of the Big Beasts goes down, and Salmond - whatever else may be said about him - has been one of the biggest beasts of our time. Bayete, Mr Salmond.

Sturgeon will doubtless carry the baton effectively but a big influx of referendum troofers and Sherry groupies into the SNP could lead to disaster for the SNP at the Westminster election next year, and Nicola's eclipse. Gilian Bowditch in last week's ST mentioned a Labour MP who is betting on there being more Tory than SNP MPs after that election - depending on the odds this could be a good bet (remember how we all laughed when a Better Nation chap suggested UKip could take a Scottish Euro seat?).

Harvie, however, is having a great post referendum spell and is making exactly the right reaching out noises. Also, the influx of new blood into the Greens is likely to be a strong positive - not necessarily the case for the SNP

For all its thoughtful insights into JoLa the person, I feel that this article slightly misses the point.

JoLa's leadership of ScotLab was not handed down on tablets of stone. Her party *chose* her as leader, and it is the party which bears responsibility for choosing someone not up to the job. Whether in a political or employment context, some of the people who apply for any job lack he required attributes, and it is the responsibility of those making the appointment to reject the unsuitable candidates.

ScotLab chose JoLa in a contested election after she had been an MSP for 12 years, of which she was a minister for less than a year but Deputy Leader for nearly 3 years. As such, her parliamentary colleagues and her wider party had a long time in which to evaluate her. They clearly failed to do so effectively.

This was the second major failure of the Labour Party in leadership selection. In 2007, the UK Labour Party chose Gordon Brown, who despite his huge talents had great difficulty in sustaining working relationships with his ministerial colleagues or his staff, and reputedly admitted that he couldn't communicate with the electorate. That appointment process also failed to produce a leader of the required personal attributes.

It is arguable that either of these choices might have been different if the leadership electorate had consisted only of a parliamentary party (who know the candidate better than the wider membership), but that is speculation.

It is interesting that the last 20 years have produced a succession of party leaders who in large part for personality reasons. The Conservative arguably erred in choosing Hague in 1997 (he was too inexperienced), in choosing IDS in 2001 (little leadership talent), and only their 4th choice of post-97 leader was genuinely up to the job. Having failed in choosing Brown, Labour erred again in 2010, choosing in Ed Miliband an unusually charisma-free leader for an era of personality politics.

The LibDems also screwed up in 2006 when they chose Menzies Campbell. He was a fine debater and foreign policy wonk, but had never been tested on a broader political agenda of the wider political stage, and having been chosen as leader by default he never persuaded his party that he could lead it effectively.

So it seems to me that there is something bigger going on than merely the failure of individuals. Why are the major political parties making so many bad choices? These failed selections are bad for politics and cruelly damaging to the over-promoted individuals who end up ritually humiliated.

" Why are the major political parties making so many bad choices? These failed selections are bad for politics and cruelly damaging to the over-promoted individuals who end up ritually humiliated."

Because with the emasculation of political conferences and policy debate in constituency parties and the parachuting in of candidates by Central Office these elections are about the only time the ordinary party members get actually consulted on anything these days. Is it any wonder the novelty of it gets them all giddy?

Agree much a good deal of what you say. I am categorically not saying that politics is reducible to personal sprezzatura, or its lack. Johann's elevation is primarily a symptom, rather than a cause, of her party's wider, visionless malaise. The personal angle is just one among many one might take, in examining that phenomenon. I'd readily accept: other factors, beyond her personality, are likely to be far, far more important.

Sorry that I appeared to be attributing a personal sprezzatura approach to you. Discussing the personality has to be first point of looking at why it happens, and I was pleased to see you criticism mixed with real human empathy. Too few commentators make that human acknowledgement.

And I agree with your view that her over-promotion is a symptom. I would be inclined to go further and suggest that it is not just a symptom of ScotLab's malaise, but of a wider malaise in the nature of political parties which extends across many developed countries.

Ms Lamont is lacking in skills and vision, in effect an over promoted local government official. However we shouldn't wonder and scratch our heads with disbelief as to why she is in this position. Lamont is in charge of Labour in Scotland for obvious reasons.London Labour simply do not want a talented, charismatic politician active in Scotland; that person may develop some dangerous ideas, such as developing a local power centre that can rival London, or start thinking out of the London supplied box.Because of her sheer lack of talent, Lamont can be controlled and manipulated.It's sad but plainly obvious and shows the sheer cynicism, control freakery and centralised thinking that governs London Labour.

I've no sympathy for Lamont, but I think her toe-curling public performances stem simply from the fact that Labour has no policies of any clarity, and every interview is a nervous exercise in trying to spew enough verbiage to conceal this. You can't sell from an empty suitcase.

And there's that. It is a good point, Vronsky. When you don't have a winning personality, you've got at least to pitch some kind of winning vision. We remain utterly in the dark about what Labour would do differently, beyond very, very ghostly mood music. Man the tubular bells!

More concerning for them, if recent reselection rounds are anything to go by, Labour are being utterly feeble with their dead wood, the accidental inarticulates and talentless no-hopers who got swept into parliament via the list in 2011. Take Falkirk. There, they selected failed MSP Karen Whitefield to replace Eric Joyce, for reasons unknown, no doubt based on her track record of steady mediocrity in the Scottish Parliament from 1999 onwards. The mind boggles. A plum seat for a good sort, and you go numpty. Again.

I take a bleaker view than you LPW - I see the dead wood as a problem across the board and one we all have to live with, indeed have been living with since 1999.

There was a kind of hope in 1999 that Holyrood would see if not a thousand flowers blooming, at least fresh talent, bright new voices coming through in all parties. I think I am fairly secure in saying this hasn't happened, and we all really know this. When those two list MSPs resigned from the SNP over NATO (one now gone to Green) there was at least one dismissive comment about their abilities from the leadership - their distinctiveness to me, however, seems to lie in an excess of principle rather than a lack of ability.

Yes Labour have a problem, but so do all the parties. And that is a problem for us all. The Greens are better than most I say - Martha Wardrop is my councillor and having seen how she handles awkward situations she is fit for the UN never mind Scotland The Tory councillor David Meikle is good, as is Labour's Pauline McKeever and the SNP's MEP Alyn Smith, indeed no doubt there are many good politicians I have no experience of, but oh dear - no one expected Holyrood to be Periclean Athens, but it should be better than it is.

Will be interesting to see what my generation (I'm 28, so those +/- 5 years or so) make of our opportunities, whether many of us will break through in time. We've not seen the last of the #indyref generation of would-be active citizens, I tell you.

I wrote part of a larger comment and tried the Preview button (because this window is so small) and it disappeared. I knew that I should have used Word etc for any kind of more extensive or thought through response......dang it !!

I think her biggest failing, amongst the many already described, is a total lack of a sense of humour. It is significant that those politicians who do well in Scotland, can also make the occasional wee joke, and take a couthy but cynical view of their own place in the history of the nation.The Unionists; but especially the Labour party in Scotland, appear to have lost sight of how hilarious most voters here find their humourless posturing. Their erses are hinging oot the windae every time they open their mouths, but they don't seem to feel the icy north wind whistling up what's left of their seats.

I watched her the day that Labour lost in 2011, she was running round all the broadcasters and the one thought that popped into my mind is that woman wants the leadership of Labour, she is incapable of leading but like Gordon Brown it is a tick in her career box. She has certainly proved to be pretty useless even within her own party. I have caught a couple of meetings where she has blanked her own support. The worrying thing for me is that she might even get in one of those day and become First Minister. Oh she can read a handout, she does not think on her feet and that is her biggest handicap. I would have to say she and all of the other Labour Leaders, ahem, they did a grand job for teaching by going into politics.

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.